Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ACTA Treaty Released

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the shrouded-in-mystery dept.

Censorship 205

roju writes "The full text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was released today. It differs from the earlier leaks in that the negotiating stance of each country has been scrubbed. Preliminary analysis is up at Ars, which warns that 'Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet.'"

cancel ×

205 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first takedown! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922000)

haha

Fa (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922010)

FIRST

Imma get up and infringe you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922034)

I may or may not be planning to infringe now.......

Prior restraint? (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922042)

"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."

Isn't that called "prior restraint"?

Re:Prior restraint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922174)

I have no problem with imminent takedown as long as the takedowns are bonded with at least 1m and the bond forfeited if they don't bring suit.

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922212)

How do you sue someone for "potential infringement"? This says they can be enjoined before they actually infringe anything. This is stomping over someone to make sure they don't do something that violates a copyright. Why not take away every teenagers computer, to prevent them from pirating in the first place?

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922324)

What if you take their computer and they don't infringe? Do you have to go to jail for stealing a computer?

The second question is: If you're about to take away a computer from an adolestent because he's going to infringe, but, as he then won't be able to, you're just going to steal a computer; can we put you in jail, knowing that once there you won't be able to take the computer away from the adolescent?

However, the real question for the truly enlightened is: If we do jail you because you were thinking about taking a computer away from an adolescent because he was about to infringe, if he later does infringe with a different computer... you'd have to be freed... to take the computer... hmmm... DAMN! I got lost.

These predictive laws are clearly too complex for the common minds. We should just let the corporations imprison us when they consider it's the right thing to do.

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923132)

What if you take their computer and they don't infringe? Do you have to go to jail for stealing a computer?

That's why these provisions are almost never used except in trademark infringement cases. If you seize someones truckload of counterfeit Prada shoes, you know that you didn't just steal a load of legitimate shoes, so you're not worried about a lawsuit for conversion or unfair competition.

What a lot of people in this thread don't realize is that, for better or for worse, nearly everything mentioned in ACTA already exists in US law. ACTA, like most of the treaties we have a hand in writing, is more of a way of extending US law to other countries.

Re:Prior restraint? (3, Informative)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922502)

Imminent infringement clauses are nothing new, and are mostly used in the commercial realm. Say, for example, that A holds a patent on stuff X, B advertises product Y which clearly infringes on that patent. A does not need to wait until B actually starts production and therefore infringes on the patent, but can slap B with an injunction right away. Nothing new here, folks.

Re:Prior restraint? (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922710)

Think about the SCO case: Perhaps SCO should have gotten an injuction to prevent anyone from distributing any version of Linux while the courts figured it all out. After all, they were claiming copyright infringement, exactly the type that would be covered in this treaty. SCO even brought the case to full fruition. This is 100% the type of case that can be subject to being enjoined. Imagine if that happened, and the judge decided that everyone that didn't have an SCO license also needed to take their Linux servers down for infringment.

The answer is to NOT have prior restraint, and sue for damages later if that is the case.

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922524)

It's not truly suing, there would be no civil action or damages. It would merely be obtaining an injunction, which is basically a way for the courts to say that they are aware that you are about to do something they consider illegal and they think you should stop.

IANAL but I feel like a possible example would be for a company to file an injunction as soon as they see a torrent tracker appear for their IP. It would allow them to stop the spread of their IP without having to wait for the infringement to happen first. To me, this seems less ridiculous than forcing rightsholders to wait for years while their case is being built, argued, and considered before they can seek help from the law.

Of course, the question becomes what is the burden of proof that infringement is imminent, and what legal recourse does the alleged infringer have to continue their activities if they consider them to be lawful. Does the MPAA have the authority to file an injunction against me knowing that I possess 1) DVD movies 2) a DVD burner 3) access vie internet to DRM cracking software.

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

AnnoyaMooseCowherd (1352247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922564)

"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."

Why not take away every teenagers computer, to prevent them from pirating in the first place?

You have only got to look at their other wish lists that include such things as "everyone should have to install spy software on their computers, to look for and delete things we think they shouldn't have", to see that, armed with this legislation, they will argue that anyone with a computer is potentially going to infringe imminently and so fair game for their legalised extortion.

If this doen't shore up the share price, I don't know what will (James Bond doesn't seem to be enough any more).

Re:Prior restraint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922302)

Infringement is always imminent on Youtube. Matter of statistics. Shut it down!

Re:Prior restraint? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922486)

Clearly, the MPAA and the RIAA have combined their R&D teams and now have their own Pre-Cog Division headed by Tom Cruise. This treaty will just allow them to operate with support from the law.

Re:Prior restraint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922534)

He can't head up anything until he comes out of the closet. Last I heard he locked himself in there and was refusing to leave.

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922568)

I never did get why they didn't lock him out of the system once he was found to be in imminent danger of killing someone.

Re:Prior restraint? (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922560)

"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."

Isn't that called "prior restraint"?

Pre-crime. And your eyeballs are latent copyright infringement devices. They're gonna have to do something about that.

Not a big change (2, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922562)

"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."

Isn't that called "prior restraint"?

This already exists in trademark law. There are even things called Anton Piller orders (after a famous case) that allow you to seize infringing goods before you even file suit, to prevent the other side from destroying all the evidence once they get your complaint letter.

Note, in many countries, getting a preliminary injunction or a Piller order requires the plaintiff to post a pretty substantial bond. And if it turns out that the other side is doing nothing wrong, they get that bond. This prevents you from using the process to destroy someone's business.

Re:Not a big change (2, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922808)

Trademark != Patent != Copyright.

As I point out in a post below, just imagine if the judge in the SCO case used this treaty as a basis, then he could have enjoined anyone from distributing (or using) Linux that didn't already have an SCO license. It *was* specifically a copyright issue, just like this treaty covers.

Re:Not a big change (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923010)

Trademark != Patent != Copyright.

As I point out in a post below, just imagine if the judge in the SCO case used this treaty as a basis, then he could have enjoined anyone from distributing (or using) Linux that didn't already have an SCO license. It *was* specifically a copyright issue, just like this treaty covers.

Yes, and? The judge in the SCO case had that ability already. The treaty doesn't require judges to issue injunctions, and they're still appealable. All the treaty requires is that judges have the power to issue injunctions. This basically forces some countries that have weak judicial powers to beef up them up.

Re:Prior restraint? (5, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922582)

Thanks for that. Some very good info on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] of all places. In case anyone wants the highlights:

Judicial view
Prior restraint is often considered a particularly oppressive form of censorship in Anglo-American jurisprudence because it prevents the restricted material from being heard or distributed at all. Other forms of restrictions on expression (such as suits for libel, slander, defamation, or actions for criminal libel) generally involve punishment only after the offending material has been published. While such punishment might lead to a chilling effect, legal commentators argue that at least such actions do not directly impoverish the marketplace of ideas. Prior restraint, on the other hand, takes an idea or material completely out of the marketplace. Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship. The United States Supreme Court expressed this view in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart by noting:
" The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. A criminal penalty or a judgment in a defamation case is subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law's sanction become fully operative.
"A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication 'chills' speech, prior restraint 'freezes' it at least for the time."
Also, most of the early struggles for freedom of the press were against forms of prior restraint. Thus prior restraint came to be looked upon with a particular horror, and Anglo-American courts became particularly unwilling to approve it, when they might approve other forms of press restriction.

Re:Prior restraint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922708)

Oh come on, are you serious? Do you think these fucks won't abuse the hell out of that clause if it passes?

They probably made it deliberately vague as well, just like always with IP documents.
I don't even want to waste the time to read it either since it probably won't apply to me over here since we have already shown our dislike to it. (we being our government)

Re:Prior restraint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922740)

"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."

Isn't that called "prior restraint"?

Isn't that called thoughtcrime?

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922904)

Is that the newspeak for "thought crime" ?

Re:Prior restraint? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923056)

Isn't that called "prior restraint"?

See the It's Coming Right For Us defence, as enshrined in the PATROIT Act [youtube.com] . Wait... you are a patriot, aren't you?

pRIOr restrainT (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923254)

Wait... you are a patriot, aren't you?

You can't spell "patriot" or "prior restraint" without "riot".

"Imminent infringement" (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922052)

How convenient.

Re:"Imminent infringement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922162)

so - does that mean that ACTA will stop Films from being show in Cineas etc? I mean, as soon as a film is done, it will get pirated. So getting the film done is really the first step towards infringement....

Re:"Imminent infringement" (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922908)

No. Really, no.

Give the courts some credit. They've had plenty of practice ignoring arguments that rest solely upon taking well-defined terms and blowing them out of proportion.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922226)

It benefits the business of government and its associates in the "private" sector, at the expense of the little guy. Of course it's convenient.

Re:"Imminent infringement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922314)

I think it's sort of like this [findmagiccards.com]

Re:"Imminent infringement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922664)

That sounds pretty much like "preventive strike", isn't it ?

provisions on software patents (4, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922078)

I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:

For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:

infringement is "imminent," (3, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922122)

So we should lock folks up not because they have committed a crime, but because they might commit a crime in the future.

Buy stocks in companies that build jails . . .

The Republican disease. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922234)

That's common Republican thinking when it comes to crime. It started in the 1980s with Reagan, when the crazies took over the party and started their "War" on Drugs. It reached a minor peak under Bush Sr., festered while Clinton was in power, and then raged full-on once Bush Jr. took over. What's worse, they've dragged the Democrats along with them, further to the Crazy Right.

Republican ideologies will be the downfall of American society. They are incompatible in every way with true American ideals. And now this Republican Craziness is being forced upon the rest of the world. It's really quite pathetic.

Re:The Republican disease. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922346)

Nothing is being forced on anyone, bear in mind that ACTA is a plurilateral treaty, that means that its adoption and subsequent passing into law by the countries involved is completely voluntary. The UK, for one, is not likely to even consider re-structuring their copyright/digital piracy laws because they've just spent a good few years mulling over the Digital Economy Bill.

The chances of any of this turning up in law anywhere anytime soon are pretty much nil.

Re:The Republican disease. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922450)

Yes because its not like the US would ever use economic pressure or threaten to withhold aid to 'persuade' anyone to sign.

US companies would never refuse to trade with countries that dont sign which will cause companies in these countries to lobby/force
their government to sign or risk job losses and less taxes etc etc.

It sounds completely voluntary to me.

Re:The Republican disease. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922836)

> It sounds completely voluntary to me.

Yeah, just like the parrot is "just resting".

In fact, here in Brazil it's all voluntary and we hear US music all the time because RAP & Funk are so much better than classical, Or Charles Aznavour or the three tenors or Mr. Bocelli.

It's totally voluntary, indeed, that we have to watch OSCAR awardings of US films with the rest of the world competing in ONE "Best foreign movie" category.

I wonder if sending a music file to a friend in some countries would be primarily an ACTA or export restriction list violation.

And for this neat treaty -- which undoubtedly will be considered law over here -- what do we get? Special treatment, folks, I'm sure we're gonna enter a Special 301 list after this. Thank you so much!

Just a cold note: if ACTA was any remotely good, we would be paying to enter it. That's just how voluntary it is.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922268)

Well if Tom Cruise believes in it, it must be right.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922272)

So we should lock folks up not because they have committed a crime, but because they might commit a crime in the future.

Buy stocks in companies that build jails . . .

So... Lets lock up the *iaa now. Yes I know they have already committed crimes, but it will be easier to prove that they are about to.

And while we are at it, the house and the senate as well.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (0, Troll)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922274)

So we should lock folks up not because they have committed a crime, but because they might commit a crime in the future.

Don't the Brits already do something like this? ASBO? Some other acronym that reduces down to "punish you efore you commit a crime"?

Re:infringement is "imminent," (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922338)

Don't the Brits already do something like this? ASBO? Some other acronym that reduces down to "punish you efore you commit a crime"?

At the very least Greorge Orwell wrote about this [wikipedia.org] happening in Oceania. Did you hear? They are at war with Eastasia.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922306)

You might as well make starting a successful business a crime, since at this point if a small company gets started and looks like it might take off and grab some legitimate market share from the current Big Players, you can pretty much rest assured the big players will attempt to freeze the little upstarts with this kind of future thought crime.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922316)

There are already plenty of laws to that effect - conspiracy is one of them, you do not necessarily have to commit the crime you are planning, so long as you plan it together with someone.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922426)

In the USA, simply conspiring isn't illegal unless you have also performed at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement [wikipedia.org] . Few people are ever punished for simple conspiracy, unless the final act has been done. In most convictions, there is only enough evidence to convince the lesser participants of conspiring (buying the gun, driving the getaway car) and not doing the actual act (murder, robbery). Even with terrorism and paranoia that follows, people have generally had to have shown they bought the fuel oil and fertilizer (or equivalent deed) to get a conviction. There are obviously exceptions, but they are more rare than mystery novels would have you believe.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (2, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922698)

In the USA, simply conspiring isn't illegal unless you have also performed at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement [wikipedia.org] . Few people are ever punished for simple conspiracy, unless the final act has been done. In most convictions, there is only enough evidence to convince the lesser participants of conspiring (buying the gun, driving the getaway car) and not doing the actual act (murder, robbery). Even with terrorism and paranoia that follows, people have generally had to have shown they bought the fuel oil and fertilizer (or equivalent deed) to get a conviction. There are obviously exceptions, but they are more rare than mystery novels would have you believe.

Actually, if you read the Wikipedia article it says that the Supreme Court has ruled 'common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute basis.', and indeed several statutes have been ruled to not require overt step.

Also: 'Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.' from the Wikipedia article, under the US section. State jurisdictions differ on requirement of an overt act or step.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (-1, Offtopic)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922358)

This should be read as 'people whom visit the piratebay'.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922482)

Who not whom.

Warehousing prisoners as an industry (2, Interesting)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922574)

Buy stocks in companies that build jails . . .

There you hit the nail on the head. Once the US moved to a privatize prison system, we ended up with an economic incentive to increase crime while at the same time jacking up penalties for increasingly trivial non-white collar crime. We also now have a whole industry related to shipping, importing, exporting and warehousing prisoners across state lines and even from one region of the country to the next.

But with more people in jail then less tax money t (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922728)

But with more people in jail then less tax money to pay for it.

Will things get so bad that we will have to be like rome and have people on death row killing each other in a coliseum on PPV?

Re:Warehousing prisoners as an industry (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922794)

Once the US moved to a privatize prison system

Huh? I know there are a handful of US States that have experimented with this but they are in the minority. Most US States and the Federal Government still run their own prisons.

Re:Warehousing prisoners as an industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922880)

Except that the private prison industry has been on the wane in the US for most of the last decade due to consistently being a failure. In reality, private prisons are dwarfed by public prisons in the United States by something like 10:1. Moreover, the major increases in US prison populations began as a result of changes in sentencing laws that were passed before the big boom in prison privatization in the late 1990s. The real story is that in the United States, both public and private prisons represent an enormous profit potential for private industry, small towns with depressed economies, correctional officer unions, and politicians seeking reelection. And yes, I am a Criminologist.

Re:infringement is "imminent," (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922616)

> So we should lock folks up not because they have committed a crime, but because they might commit a crime in the future.

-- Aha, we got you bad guys! You're all arrested!

-- But we didnt rob any bank!

-- And what's with the shovels, the maps, that dotted line marked "dig here"...

-- Oh, that.... we were just, huh, well... planning to rob the bank.

-- Really? Just planning? Hmm, ok, sorry, my bad... please do go on with your, huh, not-yet-criminal activities. Have a good day!

-- G'day, officer!

how many people who do real robberies will get les (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922662)

how many people who do real robberies will get less time then file downloads?

So I can get less time by robbing apu then I get by downing a CD / moive?

Re:infringement is "imminent," (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923036)

Buy in those that sell pitchforks and torches.

New Technology (1)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922134)

Since the majority of us have very little control over this, for various reasons, if this is going to pass or not is mostly up to those negotiating it, not our public uproar. That being said, I'm at the point where I think that the future of the net will be a very divisive one, where most of the sheeple are herded around to only a few pastures, but the hackers among us will find increasingly clever and more numerous ways to farther decentralize, encrypt, and generally help privacy. I'm not for ACTA, but I'm all about new technology that can end up protecting netizens. Cecked out wikipedia, anything that has listed as concerns the following should be extremely closely looked at, Secrecy of negotiations, threats to freedom, legal scope, practicality, privacy.

Re:New Technology (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922964)

But instead of building the future, so much brilliant minds are busy correcting the present. I do not find this acceptable or desirable. Yes, this might lead to a friendly clique taking power, so what ? Couldn't we go forward without it ?

Stop being a criminal. (0, Troll)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922152)

If you stop breaking the law then they wont believe infringement is imminent.

And obviously don't click on any links to mp3s.

Re:Stop being a criminal. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922202)

Not even to mine? http://last.fm/music/pojut [last.fm] ::sniff sniff:: You make me a sad panda. /shameless self promotion

Re:Stop being a criminal. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922510)

Yep. Your "music" sucks shit. Backstreet Boys clone group #4085 makes better "music" than you.

Re:Stop being a criminal. (4, Funny)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922204)

Well, if the law starts breaking the law (like privacy laws here), things start getting really messy!

Re:Stop being a criminal. (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922218)

Actually, you don't have to stop being a criminal; what you must stop is to be going to be a criminal.

If you're not going to be a criminal, you've got nothing to fear.

This kind of law is the only way to stop going to be criminals. I hope all going to be criminals go to jail as soon as possible.

What I'm afraid of, now is what can we possibly do against those insidious people who will be going to be criminals in the future.

Think of the going to be going to be criminals! They're going to be going to harm your child! Probably!

Re:Stop being a criminal. (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922824)

Look on the bright side. It's a great way to clean out Congress.

Too much hysteria from the peanut gallery. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922228)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/acta_draft_issued/

The register has one of the few reviews of this draft that doesn't resort to mindless hysteria. Makes for a good read.

Re:Too much hysteria from the peanut gallery. (4, Insightful)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922492)

I wouldn't call it a review of the draft: It doesn't really say all that much about it. Most of the text is spent insulting those that disagree with the author's views.

Who knows, he might be right, but the text doesn't really resemble a good review.

Re:Too much hysteria from the peanut gallery. (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923066)

Yes, but Andrew Orlowski is an idiot with a massive hard-on for the creative industries and a disklike of anything created by us plebs (like Wikipedia) - just read his back-catalog to see some of his rants again the "freetards".

[...]ACTA is plurilateral, and voluntary[...]

Purely voluntary for the governments who are currently negotiating it and have gone to great lengths to conceal its details from their voting public you mean?

What rights? (2, Interesting)

Pewpdaddy (1364159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922250)

I love the assumption of guilt. Welcome to America "Land of the free, home of the guilty." Theres only 6 billion citizens, if 100,000 of them commit "Copyright Infringement" we must punish the masses.

Re:What rights? (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922452)

This isn't just about the US. This affects everyone in every country that is considering signing the treaty.

Re:What rights? (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923180)

In a court of law, as a defendant, they may say the burden of proof is on the prosecution. When in fact, you have to prove your innocence. I don't like it, but that's the way things really are.

Also, if you don't like someone, all you have to do is accuse them of something like copyright infringement and that could equate to instant financial ruin from having to pay attorneys and court costs. EVEN IF THERE IS NO PROOF

What I would like to see is someone anonymously accuse a phantom of copyright infringement and have the RIAA waste their time and resources on prosecuting a fiction, or a dog, or a dead person.

Fair Use? (4, Informative)

PolyDwarf (156355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922256)

How does this blurb towards the end of the article:

ACTA doesn't export all of US law in this area, though; the world doesn't get huge principles like fair use (which many countries don't have) and key judicial decisions (like the Sony Betamax case which found that a device with "substantial non-infringing uses" could be sold so long as the manufacturer was not inducing infringement). Countries could adopt these, but they aren't requirements.

square with this blurb towards the beginning of the article:

ACTA would ban "the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure." It also bans circumvention devices, even those with a "limited commercially significant purpose." Countries can set limits to the ban, but only insofar as they do not "impair the adequacy of legal protection of those measures." This is ambiguous, but allowing circumvention in cases where the final use is fair would appear to be outlawed.

To me, the second blurb is pretty much saying "kiss your fair use goodbye, US Citizens"

Re:Fair Use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922424)

To me, the second blurb is pretty much saying "kiss your fair use goodbye, US Citizens"

And.. I will buy even less of the products then I am now. May they rot in Hell.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922736)

How does this blurb towards the end of the article:

ACTA doesn't export all of US law in this area, though; the world doesn't get huge principles like fair use (which many countries don't have) and key judicial decisions (like the Sony Betamax case which found that a device with "substantial non-infringing uses" could be sold so long as the manufacturer was not inducing infringement). Countries could adopt these, but they aren't requirements.

square with this blurb towards the beginning of the article:

ACTA would ban "the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure." It also bans circumvention devices, even those with a "limited commercially significant purpose." Countries can set limits to the ban, but only insofar as they do not "impair the adequacy of legal protection of those measures." This is ambiguous, but allowing circumvention in cases where the final use is fair would appear to be outlawed.

To me, the second blurb is pretty much saying "kiss your fair use goodbye, US Citizens"

Nope, that's exactly how the law works right now. It's basically a rephrasing of the DMCA. Under current US copyright law, you are allowed to make a backup copy of a DVD for your own personal use. But, under the DMCA, you can't trade DeCSS. The argument "but DeCSS has substantial non-infringing uses, like backups and playing DVDs under Linux," doesn't work because the DMCA specifically bans circumvention measures, regardless of their non-infringing uses.

Note: this is not an endorsement of the current state of the law, merely a description of it, and is merely to point out that ACTA isn't making fair use go away... it doesn't actually change current US fair use law at all. The DMCA was responsible for that.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

PolyDwarf (156355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922898)

I know about decss.. I read the blurbs more as a way to end-run an outlawing the Betamax decision.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923022)

I know about decss.. I read the blurbs more as a way to end-run an outlawing the Betamax decision.

The blurbs don't do anything more than the DMCA did. If the DMCA outlawed the Betamax decision, then this would too. But the DMCA didn't.

Re: kiss your fair use goodbye, US Citizens (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922832)

"the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure."

Common sense: If the measure can be circumvented, it is not effective. If it enforces something else than copyright (for instance, by disallowing fair use), it is not effective. In other words: this rule never applies.

Too bad there is so little logic, realism or common sense in USA law.

This draft is so (1)

damona (1182755) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922258)

This draft is so vague I don't even know when I am supposed to feel angry or sad.

Arrest all content producers (1, Informative)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922262)

Content producers will then be arrested for their own good work. If they create good enough content then they cause (imminent) copyright infringement.

Re:Arrest all content producers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922504)

Well Hollywood has prepared for this by gearing up mediocre to terrible copyrighted works. Think SyFy releases in the movie theater.

Re:Arrest all content producers (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922874)

Ah, but they have their own permission to cause the imminent infringement of their own copyright!

Seriously though, the courts aren't that stupid. The words themselves aren't the law, but the well-established meanings behind them. So, taking a word like "imminent" and hyperbolically extending it to mean "probable; sometime in the next century or two" does not alone mean the law is ripe for abuse. The courts can tell the difference between between two vastly different applications of the word "imminent".

Imminent Infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922322)

1. Create any work (it's automatically copyrighted)
2. Sue EVERYONE for imminent infringement
3. Profit, no '??????' necessary

Re:Imminent Infringement? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922778)

1. Create any work (it's automatically copyrighted)
2. Sue EVERYONE for imminent infringement
3. Judge wonders what kind of proof you'd have of imminent infringement by everybody
4. Judge further considers the kind of damages you'd be entitled to for a work that's not being sold anywhere, that nobody has heard about, and of which only you have access to a copy
5. ????
6. Profit!

Re:Imminent Infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922890)

Am gonna sue you for stealing my idea, I had it first.

Re:Imminent Infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31923208)

I think step 5 is "get massive news coverage of your unprecedented douchebaggery". This might actually work...

ACTA = Epic failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922396)

ACTA = thinly-veiled protectionism.

It is already doomed to fail, because it will not do a thing to stop "piracy" or prevent counterfeiting of goods. The major parties who conduct these illicit activities are in countries that don't give a shit. The only victims are law-abiding citizens.

ACTA is just old media's last attempt to stop their inevitable collapse. The information age and the innovations it brought changed the playing field forever. Old media know this and are afraid of these changes. Instead of trying to adapt and let the market decide. They are getting the government to "change" the market landscape to maintain the "status quo" of obsolete and cumbersome 1920s era patent and copyright laws. These laws only serve to protect a small minority via artificial monopolies on IP, while raping the vast majority.

Politician don't give a shit about the long-term implications. They only care about the healthy "bribes/favors" that old media provides them. Politicians aren't going to make one of their powerful allies in campaigns into an enemy.

This law will end-ip only accelerate the transfer of economic power to emerging countries like India, China and Russia.

Translation? (2, Interesting)

cvnautilus (1793340) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922470)

"Each party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right [copyright or related rights or trademark]. An interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an [infringing] intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right. Each party shall also provide that provisional measures may be issued, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits, to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement. Such measures may include inter alia the detailed description, the taking of samples or the physical seizure of documents or of the infringing goods." Um...What?

Re:Translation? (2, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922982)

"Each party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right [copyright or related rights or trademark]. An interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an [infringing] intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right. Each party shall also provide that provisional measures may be issued, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits, to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement. Such measures may include inter alia the detailed description, the taking of samples or the physical seizure of documents or of the infringing goods."

Um...What?

"Each party" - each signatory country to the treaty
"shall" - must
"provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction" - give its judges the power to, at a copyright/trademark/patent owner's request, issue a preliminary injunction. The judges do not have to issue the injunction, but they must have the power to do so.
"to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right [copyright or related rights or trademark]" - the applicant must show a strong likelihood of imminent infringement. Note the bracketed part - this may end up only applying to copyright and trademark infringement.
"An interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an [infringing] intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right." - The owner of the rights at issue can also ask the judge to stop a third-party distributor, like Youtube, from distributing their copyrighted work. Again, this just requires that countries give judges the power to issue these injunctions, but doesn't require the judge to go along with it.
"Each party shall also provide that provisional measures may be issued, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits, to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement. Such measures may include inter alia the detailed description, the taking of samples or the physical seizure of documents or of the infringing goods." - This is called an 'Anton Piller order' and has existed in trademark law for about 40 years. It stems from a case by the same name in which a German electronics design company contracted with an English manufacturer to build their designs. The German company send them plans, blueprints, schematics, etc., and things seemed fine... until the German company suddenly discovered (from two whistleblowers in the English company) that the manufacturer was selling the plans to another German company! The design company knew, from the whistleblowers, that if they filed suit, the manufacturer would just destroy all of their records. So, they went to court and got an order to go with police to the manufacturer and seize records, schematics, and blueprints with their name on them.
Anton Piller orders have also been used in trademark cases - Coach finds out that a factory is producing counterfeit Coach bags, for example, and they know that if they file suit, the counterfeiter will simply destroy all the evidence and records. So, they get a Piller order to go, with the police, to the factory and seize the evidence. They don't get to keep it - it's retained by the court or the police, to be preserved for trial.
To prevent abuse of the system, Piller orders frequently require that the plaintiff put up a cash bond. If you're going to seize someone's records, which may put them out of business, you have to put up a bunch of money. If you're wrong about the counterfeiting, you owe them the money.

So, in summary, this paragraph is simply a restatement of the current law.

ugh (1)

apricotmuffins (950235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922480)

Imminent copyright infringement? Why don't they just take down the sodding internet already.

It's precrime + Nazi laws that can lead to lockup (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922570)

It's precrime + Nazi laws that can lead to lockup just for being some who want to speak up as a law like that can make easy to cut off any one who may even thing about trying to say something bad about some on in power.

At least the constitution does not let stuff like that happen.

But in places like china they can then just use the ACTA to get a way with it.

Re:It's precrime + Nazi laws that can lead to lock (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922996)

In my opinion, the primary goal is to forbid Linux. Free speech will be an unintentional victim.

do you know that many set top boxes use Linux (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923162)

do you know that many set top boxes and other stuff that is in the back round use Linux

so what will killing off linux do? Kill mac os x as well?

It will never become law in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31922596)

We have absolutely nothing to worry about. Obama and the Democrats would NEVER let this happen! Loyal slashdot readers understand this. So relax, folks. Let's move on....

Powerless (2, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922680)

Countries negotiate away our rights with impunity, the reason they get away with it being that citizens -- myself included -- have neither the guts nor the means to stage an armed uprising against today's leading governments and often have no clue what's going on anyway. Is there any hope for freedom in a world where the powerful conspire to restrict it against the best interests of the people?

this is a declaration of war (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922696)

on your rights, on your freedoms, and on the richness of your culture

not by artists, but by an entrenched oligopoly of a dying distribution network (replaced by the internet)

the proper response to this declaration of war is not via legal means. all legal means have been corrupted bought and sold by entrenched corporate interests

the proper response is complete subversion of all media on the internet

we can't beat them in the legal arena. not because our legal arguments are inferior. indeed, they are superior. but we can't compete on the same playing field in terms of financial influence over our legislative bodies

so we will instead starve these assholes to death by destroying all of their sources of income: complete ubiquity of their media on the internet, free and higher quality (no DRM) than their locked up bullshit that only punishes the common man (it certainly doesn't punish pirates)

let the war being: tens of millions of poor, technological sophisticated, and media hungry teenagers versus a couple thousand lawyers

it's going to be a rout and we're going to win this war, by destroying these corporate interest that impoverish our culture and imperil our rights and freedoms by draining their finances

it is no longer good enough to merely ignore this bullshit. it is incumbent upon anyone with a sense of morality to outright destroy media corporations for the crimes they are inflicting on our cultures

I just can't wait... (2, Insightful)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922854)

I give it two weeks before we start seeing junk all over the net, possibly even here, along the lines of "ACTA not as bad as previously thought" or "why ACTA could actually save OSS" or other completely ripe horseshit like that. Hopefully everyone is smart enough to realize that's just the shills outing themselves, but they won't be.

Hate this fuckin' planet so hard. Let me off.

So no 1th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, Amendment unde (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922946)

So no 1th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, Amendment under this.

As this lets them cut you off with out a trail by jury and can be used to stop free speech.

If some where to make a web page get it shut down take it all the way to the supreme court as there is not way that this law will be able to stand with all the Amendments that is takes away.

Suspicious... (1)

wtbname (926051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31922978)

I am very suspicious of the iPad. I expect that it will be used to infringe on several important rights holders in the music and movie industry. We need to seize all iPads before they can be used to commit this treasonous act.

To the CopyRightMobile, ACTAman!

The whole treaty smells of desperation (2, Interesting)

qwerty8ytrewq (1726472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923118)

The whole treaty smells of desperation and fear. The Trad whiteshirts must be seeing their careers in copyright law dissolving in the next 5 years. Copyright law is going to end up as a red flag career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws [wikipedia.org] unless IP is engaged with in modern frameworks. Not that I will cry any tears for the copyright crocodiles.

I think the bigest problem with anticircumvention (3, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923176)

... is the notion that unless the publisher of a work explicitly sanctions a particular copying method, in particular for something like private use, then it is essentially illegal to do (bear in mind that "effective technological measure" does not require that the copy protection mechanism literally *BE* effective at preventing copies from being made, it only has to have been some measure put there by the copyright holder for the purposes of preventing copies, whether or not is is still otherwise easy or convenient to do).

Now while some supporters of the notion might not see any particular reason for a person to need to circumvent copy protection for their own private use, when a publisher might choose to actively support it anyways, it actually ends up creating a situation where, for example, the publisher might be perfectly okay with you copying that movie to your iPad (presumably for your own private use), but when new technology comes out in a few years that doesn't happen to be all that compatible with the iPad, unless the company has had the resources to invest in keeping up with changes in technology for the purposes of utilizing their older material, a person is left being locked into only dealing with Apple stuff -- they cannot legally transfer their already purchased material to any entirely new device of a similar purpose that they might happen to acquire over time. In addition to almost openly serving the agenda of big businesses while strangle-holding the little guy, it creates a situation that, however inadvertent, ends up directing what sort of technologies can be legally developed in the future. It is my contention that ANY law that does this sort of thing is, regardless of how it might be intended to be used, a bad law, and should be stricken or completely redrafted so that this situation does not ever arise. At the very least, devices themselves that can circumvent copy protection without requiring sanctioning of the copyright holder should not be illegal. At most all that should be illegal is the act of a person that uses such a device to infringe on copyright (but here's the funny thing, with that provision, then they are already breaking a law, so outlawing circumvention serves no real purpose).

A Completely One Sided Law (2, Interesting)

gink1 (1654993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923200)

"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is 'imminent,' even if it hasn't happened yet"

This is exactly what you would expect when only one party (Big Media) has any true input into a law. It seems the rightsholders get an injunction if they make a argument that infringement might happen.

Could this injunction end up as one of the 3 strikes the poor consumers have? If so a consumer who had downloaded something before could get another "strike" without even downloading a thing. Especially since everything is handled without the Justice System being involved (railroaded).

About right for the new world of American Big Media internet. New Zealand anyone?

No worries (1)

The Shootist (324679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31923212)

Nothing to worry about. Not much to discuss either. No Treaty signed by Obama will ever achieve Senate approval.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>